Why is "Quality" so Freakin' Expen$ive?
Say it ain't so, Cathy Horyn.
Thursday breakfast contains a little extra frisson for me: the Styles pages of the New York Times, and yesterday's looked extra-promising.
Horyn shopped with three stylists charged with creating looks for the 40+ woman, with a close eye to value and quality.
"Perfect", I thought, and devoted laser-like focus to the piece. Read Cathy Horyn's article, "You're Choosy. So Are We." here. The site also features a slide show, so you can really see the pieces.
(Note: This link will expire; if so, Google the name of the article, originally published April 30, 2009, or go to the NYT's online archives.)
The classic Michael by Michael trench ($200) and big bag ($348) recall Deja Pseu's Ines de la Fressange post.
But they are paired with dark green Vera Wang stretch pants ($995) and admittedly killer Lanvin sandals ($885). Why can't they show us pants priced less than a coat?
And while I admired this impeccable Alaia zip-front cotton piqué dress, $2, 600, I felt a flush of pique, not piqué. Going on 61, I am not interested in skirts five inches above the knee. (Maybe they meant over forty, but still in one's forties?)
It's clear that what stylists think is "worth it" is nearly always too costly for me, even though I appreciate the quality of a Cucinelli leather jacket ($3, 300). But I guess that's what happens when they shop for women who are downsizing from Prada to Phillip Lim.
Horyn adores a Balenciaga shirtdress, ($1, 195) and sees it as a practical purchase, worn for day with sandals and for evening with gold chains and heels. Wearing floor length silk crepe for day would feel uncomfortably overdressed to me.
In the same section, an article titled "'09ers Take a Turn as '49ers" describes how the Madison Avenue location of the boutique Olive and Bette's (who make great casual wear) have hosted a Sell Your Old Gold Night, with on the spot evaluation, purchase and payment.
This novel promotion attempts to recapture business, down 40% (and more) from last year, and keep the doors open. The owner said, "We're going to be fine. I just want to keep them shopping- from me."
I wonder how Horyn and her stylists drifted so far of touch with women not willing to drop thousands this season... if they ever were. Even in New York, these choices will be met with rolled eyes by the many women who buy carefully, and whose price point is lower than the "solutions" presented here.
Thursday breakfast contains a little extra frisson for me: the Styles pages of the New York Times, and yesterday's looked extra-promising.
Horyn shopped with three stylists charged with creating looks for the 40+ woman, with a close eye to value and quality.
"Perfect", I thought, and devoted laser-like focus to the piece. Read Cathy Horyn's article, "You're Choosy. So Are We." here. The site also features a slide show, so you can really see the pieces.
(Note: This link will expire; if so, Google the name of the article, originally published April 30, 2009, or go to the NYT's online archives.)
The classic Michael by Michael trench ($200) and big bag ($348) recall Deja Pseu's Ines de la Fressange post.
But they are paired with dark green Vera Wang stretch pants ($995) and admittedly killer Lanvin sandals ($885). Why can't they show us pants priced less than a coat?
And while I admired this impeccable Alaia zip-front cotton piqué dress, $2, 600, I felt a flush of pique, not piqué. Going on 61, I am not interested in skirts five inches above the knee. (Maybe they meant over forty, but still in one's forties?)
It's clear that what stylists think is "worth it" is nearly always too costly for me, even though I appreciate the quality of a Cucinelli leather jacket ($3, 300). But I guess that's what happens when they shop for women who are downsizing from Prada to Phillip Lim.
Horyn adores a Balenciaga shirtdress, ($1, 195) and sees it as a practical purchase, worn for day with sandals and for evening with gold chains and heels. Wearing floor length silk crepe for day would feel uncomfortably overdressed to me.
In the same section, an article titled "'09ers Take a Turn as '49ers" describes how the Madison Avenue location of the boutique Olive and Bette's (who make great casual wear) have hosted a Sell Your Old Gold Night, with on the spot evaluation, purchase and payment.This novel promotion attempts to recapture business, down 40% (and more) from last year, and keep the doors open. The owner said, "We're going to be fine. I just want to keep them shopping- from me."
I wonder how Horyn and her stylists drifted so far of touch with women not willing to drop thousands this season... if they ever were. Even in New York, these choices will be met with rolled eyes by the many women who buy carefully, and whose price point is lower than the "solutions" presented here.
Comments
Unless you're a movie star or mogul, who has that kind of money to splash around?
The fashion people are always telling us that we should buy classic pieces and update inexpensively with bags and shoes. They've got to be kidding about the "inexpensive" part, because in my neck of the woods, the shoes and bags are the most expensive items in a wardrobe.
(For example, at a store like TJ Maxx, you can get nice shirts for $10 or a nice wool pea coat for $20, but the bags run in the $100s, and the shoes are at least $30.)
Who HAS this kind of money, anyway? I know a few women who are very well off financially and even the ones who are into clothing and style just don't spend that kind of money on a single garment.
Ms. Horyn, how about something for the rest of us?
Darla
May Cathy and her stylists be doomed to even a single day in the real life of many women ... . sale racks at Target!
Jjjj
darla: Jumpsuits prove that 'wore it once, don't wear it again' adage.
mom h: The advice I've heard is a "buy the best shoes and bag you can afford." In other words, that's where to put serious money, because good shoes last and a good bag elevates even thrift shop jeans. And of course you can pay way too much for either!
Frugal: There has been a definite erosion in some brands' quality (Gucci, Chanel); other big brands (Bottega Veneta, Hermes, Balenciaga, Van Noten) as well as less-known local or limited-distribution designers are holding the quality fort.
Like Leah, I'd read an article like this more for silhouette and shape ideas. (And I for one LOVE that silk maxi shirtdress; with the maxi silhouette being in, and me being of the chunkier persuasion, I'm certainly not going to wander round in the trendier ones with twisted rope halter straps, but this? This, I could wear! To the office even, and I'm forty, though a "creative" and therefore possibly given more crazy allowance in my dress.)
And it's really nice to see an article on clothing the mature woman that doesn't immediately pop her into boxy primary colours and prim below-the-knee skirts, and at the same time, isn't expecting her to have the figure (and the lack of shame) of Madonna. Even the maligned short dress is something that most of the forty-to-fifty year olds of my acquaintance could pull off. (Besides, the woman in the pics is clearly a model, and as such, Amazon-sized; on any normal human, that dress probably hits the kneecap anyhow.)
Like Frugal Scholar, I have often noticed that much expensive fashion is not that high of quality and I find this sad. I can find most of these options if I shop in NY but even if I could afford the choices, I don't find much that is truly worth the money.
I wear a lot of ankle-length skirts and dresses, and have ever since I started picking out my own clothes, and it's just a matter of mastering an Edwardian one-handed "sweep" for stairs, and gathering them into your lap in cars or public transit. But I can certainly understand that this is a near-dead skill that few want or need to master!
But the real point stands - the NYT has no clue! In fact, I sometimes visit a news/pop culture blog (Jezebel) which counts a pretty high number of NYC-based women amongst its posters and readers - and working women spend much, MUCH less on clothing than I would expect based on me and my peers! They are being eaten alive by insane rents on top of health insurance costs, so a single woman making $30 to even $50 or $60 grand there seems to be really scraping by, and by and large isn't even shopping at mid-level designers or better boutique ranges. They are big fans of Target over there...
And I agree with Frugal. I'm not sure one always gets what one pays for.
Do you think stylists just write for each other?
I'm doing just fine, financially, but since my money is my own and not handed to me by a sugar daddy, I am dumbfounded by the thought of spending, say, almost a thousand dollars on a pair of green stretch pants, even tho' I can afford them.
Occasionally splurge on designer but only on sale.